PDA

View Full Version : Gil, the IRL and the Ziggy Prophecies



Chief
03-27-03, 03:24 PM
Well, let me give you a little lesson in Nation Spin

Tomorrow it will be a bruised back. Then sometime, oh, say Wednesday, it will turn into a "small fracture". Of course, Gil will be the first Brazilian to have a "slight cracking in his neck" which will lead to speculation from the brain trust as maybe it some genetic code responsible for this to happen.

Come hell or highwater, it wont be that bad........

Ziggy


Hehhehe! :rofl:

The ZIGGY Prophecies.......... (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/indycar/5638/)


“Gil suffered a minor fracture of the neck and lower back and a slight concussion,” said Dr. Henry Bock, Indy Racing League director of medical services. “These injuries will require a minimum of four weeks to heal, relegating Gil to the sideline for Motegi.”

DaveL
03-27-03, 05:47 PM
If the history of Earl is any guide, Gil will by no means be the last driver to suffer such injuries (or worse) this year.

And that is what is sad.

RaceGrrl
03-27-03, 05:57 PM
It isn't surprising, in a series whose entire philosophy is built on denial.

mnkywrch
03-27-03, 10:59 PM
It's getting ridiculous. I know he hit the wall at 75G's with a bad angle but they need more crush at the rear of the cars.

SAFER will be a step forward, sure, but you can't count on it being on every inch of race track.

DaveL
03-28-03, 12:22 AM
And for comparison's sake, in '01 Gugelmin backed into the wall at Chicago with a 100g impact . He missed the race weekend, but not the next.

rabbit
03-28-03, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by DaveL
And for comparison's sake, in '01 Gugelmin backed into the wall at Chicago with a 100g impact . He missed the race weekend, but not the next. Or Texas where he had a 66G frontal impact (sustained for 1/10th of a second:eek: , the highest G load ever sustained w/out major injury to the driver) and followed that up with a 113G rear impact w/ the infield wall. He was put on a stretcher, but his worst injury was bruises on his shoulders (from the Hans). The impact was so hard it split his seat and crushed his headrest. He was back in the car the next week.

Napoleon
03-28-03, 08:19 AM
The Ziggy Prophecies!!!

I can't wait until the screen adaptation.

I wonder who will play Ziggy.

mnkywrch
03-28-03, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Napoleon
I wonder who will play Ziggy.

For some reason, Dennis Hopper circa 1982 is the guy I've picked...

Cam
03-28-03, 09:26 AM
I vote Robin Miller..... :D

DaveL
03-28-03, 02:49 PM
Good tip-in Rabbit.

I don't want to contemplate what would have happened to Mo had he has the same wrecks in a Crapwagon. It may have made what happened to Gordon Smiley look tame.

Hurling Frootmig
03-28-03, 02:59 PM
And you guys are forgetting Robby Gordon's big hit at Michigan in the mid-90's. He was out for the weekend but was back racing right away.

Or how about Pruett into the wall backwards at Gateway at about 170MPH and walks away.

It seems that the IRL cars are still in fact crapwagons. They still seem to be tail heavy and no matter if Penske or anyone else is making the attentuator (which CART doesn't seem to need and neither does F1) they still have drivers receiving severe back injuries during tail to wall crashes.

Hurling Frootmig
03-28-03, 03:01 PM
To play Ziggy you'd have to get a Nancy boy like Daniel Day Lewis.

DaveL
03-28-03, 03:04 PM
Or howza 'bout Christian backing into the wall so hard at Milwaukee that he damaged the wall? He was out for the weekend, but only the weekend.

nrc
03-29-03, 04:32 AM
Just one more reason that I would rather have a shorter engine (I4 turbo) than a longer one (V10 NA).

Once upon a time, long, ago before the IRL was actually racing, I read a story where Tony George complained that one of the ridiculous expenses that teams had to bear were those whimpy transmissions that break everytime you back into the wall.

I think it was probably in "On Track" magazine ages ago. Wish I could find that.

pchall
03-29-03, 10:21 AM
I remember that TG quote about the wimpy CART gearboxes, too. I don't remember the original source, but it was spread by IRL internet propaganda corps every place they posted. If you want to look for it, try Google's archived web crawls where all the old threads go to die or haunt us.

Railbird
03-29-03, 10:31 AM
When Christian knocked the fence down at Milwaukee the only reason he was held out was because of the KO rule. I don't believe he had any injuries to speak of.

Napoleon
03-29-03, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Railbird
When Christian knocked the fence down at Milwaukee the only reason he was held out was because of the KO rule. I don't believe he had any injuries to speak of.

The media reports made it sound like he did not have much in the way of injuries but here is an interesting story. Everyone at where my brother works knows he is a huge racing fan. Someone from one of their California offices, who would not know the difference between AJ Foyt and Richard Petty if they were standing next to each other, was flying in to Cleveland on something like Wednesday or Thursday the weekend of the Cleveland or Mid Ohio race.

When he shows up at my brother's office he starts telling a story of sitting next to some race car drivers. He was fumbling with the names when my brother realizes that he is trying to say Emmo Fittipaldi. It ends up that in his row was Emmo, Christian and in the row in front of them was Emmo's daughter who was doing Portuguese language feed for CART.

In the conversation they had over the several hours they were talking to each other Christian described internal head injuries that were worse then reported in the media, and lasted some period of time. (Of course I am assuming that no one was exaggerating and the storyteller accurately recalled what was said).

Interesting aside - Its interesting to hear what the take of this guy was on Emmo and Christian, keeping in mind he didn't have the slightest idea of who they are and what the cars they race look like. His impression went something like "Emmo was a really classy guy, but the kid seemed a little bit wild and "out there".

DaveL
03-29-03, 12:01 PM
While I wouldn't doubt that Christian was injured worse than what was report, just imagine the same crash in a crapwagon and think of how much worse he would have been hurt.

And the Lemmings still have the credulity to praise the "safety" after all of these years of broken backs and necks. And they have a whole season of broken backs and necks to look forward to.

JoeBob
03-29-03, 12:21 PM
I think Christian did miss quite a bit of time after that wreck due to a brain contusion. (I think it was that wreck, it could have been one of his many others.)

Hink
03-29-03, 02:43 PM
Fittipaldi missed the weekend after he took down the wall in Milwaukee due to the KO rule.

He did miss a fair amount of time later on after a practice wreck (Gateway(?)) due to head injuries. I think that's the one JB is thinking of.

Ziggy
03-29-03, 07:26 PM
Gateway, testing the new generation Ford Cosworth.

Ziggy

Hink
03-30-03, 01:08 AM
Thanks for the confirmation Ziggy - wasn't 100% sure.

Badger
03-30-03, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by DaveL
And for comparison's sake, in '01 Gugelmin backed into the wall at Chicago with a 100g impact . He missed the race weekend, but not the next.

In the interest of accuracy, comparisons are meaningless with the info provided. As important as the max G is, the duration in time the G's are experienced is equally important. Secondly, I don't believe the data recorders are the same. I believe CART uses a Ford developed unit and IRL use a Delphi so there could be differences in how the units record max G's. I recall that Sid Watkins (F1 doc) has questioned some of the max G's seen in CART. Finally, it will take more than one crash to determine if there still is a problem.

pchall
03-30-03, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Badger
Finally, it will take more than one crash to determine if there still is a problem.

But it only takes one hit to continue a long litany of very problematic injuries.

GdF had that hit. :(

Napoleon
03-30-03, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by JoeBob
I think Christian did miss quite a bit of time after that wreck due to a brain contusion.

What Cristian told the guy my brother knows is that he had a hematoma (sp?). A pool of blood that forms between the brain and skull. I do not recall that being reported in the media.

DaveL
03-30-03, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Badger
In the interest of accuracy, comparisons are meaningless with the info provided. As important as the max G is, the duration in time the G's are experienced is equally important.


This is the old "every crash is different" line that is used to try to claim that you can't compare IRL crashes to similar crashes in CART. It's bull. If we accept this argument we'd be accepting the assertion that there has never ever been a crash in CART that is similar to one in the IRL with the same peak g's recorded for the same amount of time, and that's why CART drivers don't get broken backs and necks, not because of the intrinisic safety of the cars.

Nuh, uh. I'm not buying it. But wait, your argument gets even worse:



Secondly, I don't believe the data recorders are the same. I believe CART uses a Ford developed unit and IRL use a Delphi so there could be differences in how the units record max G's.

Baloney. If Gugelmin hit that wall in Chicago with a Delphi box, maybe it would have shown 107gs while the Ford box showed 110. Either way it's over 100gs. Ditto for his Texas crash. What you would want us to believe is that Guglemin really didn't hit that hard and the Ford box inaccurately recorded all of those gs. What, an IRL box might have shown only 20gs (by inference a more accurate read than the CART box) and that's the real reason why he didn't get hurt?

Once again we are asked to look at everything except the design of the cars for the reason of the huge disparity in injury rate.
:rolleyes:

Railbird
03-30-03, 11:55 AM
Question:

With the gearboxes located in the proper place and the overall engine/transaxle mass reduced, in everyone's opinion what is the flaw with the latest IndyCar?

Gil hit the wall a lick, no doubt about it, but the injuries common with the old formula remain something to be concered with.

RTKar
03-30-03, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Railbird
Question:

With the gearboxes located in the proper place and the overall engine/transaxle mass reduced, in everyone's opinion what is the flaw with the latest IndyCar?

Gil hit the wall a lick, no doubt about it, but the injuries common with the old formula remain something to be concered with.

I'm not really qualified to answer the question but one thing I think we've all noticed is how these cars remain more or less in tact in a similar fashion as the old Watson Roadsters. I was at Milwaukee when Christian hit turn 2 and witnessed the collision from turn 3. Unlike "Indycars" a ChampCar seems to dissipate the energy more, Christians engine came away from the the front end of the car.His accident may well have been more serious had it not done so. I don't recall seeing "Indycars" where that has happened which leads me to think the chassis is far too rigid and sturdy. The attenuator added after the first few accidents in the irl appears to me to be a band aid on a far larger design flaw in how the chassis dissipates the impact away from the driver. Apparently that flaw has not been corrected in the current edition. One other point is the angle of impact. Could the irl design have a tendency to impact the wall at an an undesirable angle due to its center of gravity, the relative constant speed they run, the engine weight and the types of tracks they are raced on ?

pchall
03-30-03, 01:34 PM
I'm beginning to think that the configuration of the modern formula car intended for speedway use is just inherently dangerous.

The better the design is for going fast on big ovals the worse the hits are going to be.

And some of the collateral damage is the better the speedway performance the worse the car is on road courses.

Badger
03-30-03, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by DaveL
This is the old "every crash is different" line that is used to try to claim that you can't compare IRL crashes to similar crashes in CART. It's bull. If we accept this argument we'd be accepting the assertion that there has never ever been a crash in CART that is similar to one in the IRL with the same peak g's recorded for the same amount of time, and that's why CART drivers don't get broken backs and necks, not because of the intrinisic safety of the cars.

Nuh, uh. I'm not buying it. But wait, your argument gets even worse:



Baloney. If Gugelmin hit that wall in Chicago with a Delphi box, maybe it would have shown 107gs while the Ford box showed 110. Either way it's over 100gs. Ditto for his Texas crash. What you would want us to believe is that Guglemin really didn't hit that hard and the Ford box inaccurately recorded all of those gs. What, an IRL box might have shown only 20gs (by inference a more accurate read than the CART box) and that's the real reason why he didn't get hurt?

Once again we are asked to look at everything except the design of the cars for the reason of the huge disparity in injury rate.
:rolleyes:
DaveL, when it comes to historical data, you are almost second to none, however, your technical expertise leaves much to be desired. While doing your comparison, you flat out ignored the time aspect of the equation. So Gugelmin hit at 107 Gs. How long was the duration of that max G? How long did Gil experience those Gs? What was the direction of those Gs relative to the driver? Wasn't Gonzos crash less than 100 Gs? As I tried to explain 107 Gs at a .0001 of a second might be survivable, while 50 Gs for a second probably isn't. It is this duration rate that can also account for different max G readings between the two recorders. If the Ford recorder samples at a faster rate, it will give a higher readings for the same crash.

You can slam the IRL for many things,most of which I would join you in including its past history in safety, however when you are ready to pronounce after one injury that the cars are unsafe, you lose credibility.

sundaydriver
03-30-03, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Napoleon
What Cristian told the guy my brother knows is that he had a hematoma (sp?). A pool of blood that forms between the brain and skull. I do not recall that being reported in the media.

It was reported in the media. He missed five races and Moreno filled him for him. It was widely reported during the races and in print. I think there still might be something on his website about it.

DaveL
03-30-03, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Badger
While doing your comparison, you flat out ignored the time aspect of the equation. So Gugelmin hit at 107 Gs. How long was the duration of that max G? How long did Gil experience those Gs? What was the direction of those Gs relative to the driver?


It's never the difference in cars, is it Badger? Mo had two wrecks in '01, one at Texas and the other at Chicago. In both cases he backed into a wall at over 100gs and in both cases he did not suffer any broken bones. You can argue about how the black boxes record the data all you want, but the facts are CART drivers during the same time period as the IRL suffered for less injuries. You cannot argue that in every single case the stars lined up all wrong for the IRL drivers and right for the CART drivers which is why the latter did not suffer the same broken bones. But at some point you have to look at the cars as a variable, which is something IRL supporters avoid doing at all costs.



Wasn't Gonzos crash less than 100 Gs?


He went in head first. You claim that two rear first accidents in the different series are apples and oranges, but now want to introduce a nose first crash that likely would have resulted in a fatality no matter what kind of car he was driving.



You can slam the IRL for many things,most of which I would join you in including its past history in safety, however when you are ready to pronounce after one injury that the cars are unsafe, you lose credibility.

Will you revisit this statement if another driver backs in suffers a broken back and neck? My money is on it happening again. No, I don't want it to, but I still don't think IRL cars are as safe as the CART machines, nor have they ever been. If you want to question my credibility that's your business. The same kind of accidents consistantly resulting the same kind of injuries speaks for itself.

RacinM3
03-30-03, 06:31 PM
Didn't Mansell punch a hole in the Phoenix wall back in 1993? He only missed that one race, if that. And this from an incessant whiner and complainer (although I thought he was great!).

Think about it. CART drivers were better off in 1993 - 10 years ago. :mad:

Badger
03-30-03, 11:28 PM
It's never the difference in cars, is it Badger?

Sure it is, the first generation IRL cars were awful (more concussions then neck/back issues actually), the second gen had a poor record as well. In the past, I jumped on 220 when he claimed the cars were not "that bad" because clearly they were. You seem to like statistics, what statistical accuracy is available at this time after one race in the new cars?


You cannot argue that in every single case the stars lined up all wrong for the IRL drivers and right for the CART drivers which is why the latter did not suffer the same broken bones.

Please highlight where I made this argument Dave. It may look good on the BB in your reply, but it is utterly meaningless because
1) I never made the statement
2) I don't believe the old IRL cars were as safe as CART


Will you revisit this statement if another driver backs in suffers a broken back and neck?

Absolutely, because there would then be a trend and that shows a problem. I just don't believe that basing a conclusion off one crash resulting in an injury is valid. If that is the criteria that you are willing to go by, then the critisisms will never end and they will be in every race series.

DaveL
03-31-03, 12:40 AM
Badger,

Now that you've laid out your case a little more clearly I do not find myself in disagreement with it, and I accept your position that I have rushed to judgement on this year's cars. I think I speak for all of us when I say that it a sincere hope that Gil is the last IRL driver to suffer such injuries this year. That said, what happened to deFerrin last week, given what has happened in the past, leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I cannot help but think that he won't be last. I hope I'm wrong.

Keep in mind that my breathing stops whenever I see a bad wreck, no matter what series I'm watching, and it doesn't start again until I know the driver is awake and halfway alert.

nrc
03-31-03, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Railbird
Question:

With the gearboxes located in the proper place and the overall engine/transaxle mass reduced, in everyone's opinion what is the flaw with the latest IndyCar?

They're even more ugly?

Napoleon
03-31-03, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by nrc
They're even more ugly?


:thumbup:

Railbird
03-31-03, 11:24 AM
They're even more ugly?


they are that

mnkywrch
03-31-03, 11:45 AM
http://www.theautochannel.com/callahan/98indy/race/runser01.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1830000/images/_1833079_junqueiraallsport300.jpg

http://indyracing.artemisimages.com/detail/imscf2905.jpg

Ahh, I'll take the 2003 model, thanks...

sundaydriver
03-31-03, 11:51 AM
Those rear wings are actually bigger then my picnic table.

mnkywrch
03-31-03, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by sundaydriver
Those rear wings are actually bigger then my picnic table.

Well, when you compare two Indy configurations to a short oval...

You're comparing picnic tables to boards.

mapguy
03-31-03, 11:59 AM
Personally I think that the 2nd gen CW is better than the current.

But then again. It is the least ugly of the three.

But compare all three to a proper thoroughbred racing machine

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/cart/2003/mon/cart-2003-mon-tm-0205.jpg


and they are all still fugly pigs.

mnkywrch
03-31-03, 12:02 PM
They're designed for different uses.

One's designed to go road racing. One's not.

The ironic/sad thing, the one you'd think would be optimized to handle high speed/high G wall impacts... sure hasn't shown it yet. And it's not like they don't have years of experience they can draw from.

Warlock!
03-31-03, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by mnkywrch
Well, when you compare two Indy configurations to a short oval...

You're comparing picnic tables to boards.
I dunno... they both look to be over 2' deep. That's alot of boards (unless you consider a half-sheet of plywood a "board")

Warlock!

RaceGrrl
03-31-03, 12:34 PM
Maybe he meant to say that he was comparing picnic tables to barn doors?

mnkywrch
03-31-03, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by RaceGrrl
Maybe he meant to say that he was comparing picnic tables to barn doors?

I thought he was comparing the wings from the first two to the last photo.

Myself, the rear wing size doesn't bother me, and I like the engine cowling shrinking.

I mean, it was big enough in 1997 for the ride-along mechanic...

pchall
03-31-03, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by RaceGrrl
Maybe he meant to say that he was comparing picnic tables to barn doors?

More like the bench to the picnic table.

sundaydriver
03-31-03, 01:32 PM
My picnic table is 4 ft by 8 ft. :D

The rear wing on a crapwagon could double as a table for the crew when not in use. :thumbup:

racer2c
03-31-03, 02:12 PM
'wrench, size does matter. ;)

Sean O'Gorman
03-31-03, 04:32 PM
Mock the IRL wings all you want, but what other race car component can pick up TV signals from as far away as Croatia? :laugh:

Peter Venkman
04-05-03, 04:07 PM
"I don't remember the original source, but it was spread by IRL internet propaganda corps every place they posted. If you want to look for it, try Google's archived web crawls where all the old threads go to die or haunt us."

I also don't remember the timing, but I do remember the remark.

I don't know how this clown can sleep at night.

Proximate cause.